Case Citator › Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation

Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
497 U.S. 871
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
93 of 93
Citing cases (total)
5,581
Treatment dates
2007
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation has been abrogated in part: all 93 flagged citations have been read, and one confirmed treatment is listed below. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly displaced the permissive pleading presumption that National Wildlife Federation had drawn from Conley v. Gibson, as the Eighth Circuit later explained in Hawse v. Page.
More on how this was screened

Twombly did not name National Wildlife Federation, but retired the Conley standard underlying that part of it. The other citing opinions applied National Wildlife Federation's standing, summary-judgment, ripeness, zone-of-interests, and final-agency-action rules; cited the distinct Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife; or discussed other authorities.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

5,581 later cases cite Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation; 93 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court displaced National Wildlife Federation's permissive pleading-stage presumption by retiring the Conley standard on which it relied.

    Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    But the passage so often quoted fails to mention this understanding on the part of the Court, and after puzzling the profession for 50 years, this famous observation has earned its retirement. The phrase is best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an accepted pleading standard: once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace